On Tuesday, May 31sr, the LBNA deputed to the City’s Planning and Housing Committee on environmental policies proposed for Official Plan Amendment 583 (OPA 583), regarding stronger protections for permeable landscaping and mature trees.
Our deputation can be heard in the video below
Below is the text of our letter to the Committee.
To learn more about the City’s review of the Official Plan, click here.
Because I live immediately across the street from #9 Thirty Eighth, I filed an appeal of the COA’s decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body, at the time a newly-formed tribunal to replace the Ontario Municipal Board. The City also filed an appeal of the decision. I subsequently learned that the City was appealing the COA decision because it went against the advice of City staff.
This was the first TLAB appeal for a property in Long Branch – although, as it turned out, it was not the first property in Long Branch to be heard by the TLAB. (We’ll discuss this further in a future post)
At TLAB, you have to choose to be either a Participant or a Party. Participants can present evidence, but cannot cross-examine other witnesses. Parties have the authority to call witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses called by the City and the Applicant. I chose to be a Party because, although I am not a lawyer, being a Party would give me the same status before the TLAB as a lawyer.
To me, the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to approve 9 Thirty Eighth reflected carelessness and bias. Over the period from 2011 to 2017, (prior to the formation of the LBNA) the COA approved 67% of the severance applications they heard. More concerningly, during this same period, the OMB approved severances in 97% of the appeals they heard. And In 2015, EVERY severance application before the COA and OMB were approved.
I sent a letter to Michael Mizzi, who was, at that time, Director of Zoning and Committee of Adjustment for the City about the process for reviewing a COA decision. I was informed that I could appeal a decision by the COA to TLAB, but that members of a COA panel were immune from prosecution.
So, I sought to summon two members of the Committee of Adjustment to testify at the TLAB hearing. This was one factor in my choosing to be a Party. I wanted them to testify, under oath, about how they reached their decision, the analysis they undertook and to explain why they chose to not follow the recommendations from Planning and Urban Forestry.
However, the Chair of TLAB, Mr. Ian Lord, would not allow me to summon these witnesses. He explained that TLAB hearings were de novo, which means a fresh evaluation of the evidentiary merits of a development proposal as if we were presenting arguments for the first time. The process followed by a Committee of Adjustment was considered irrelevant: only the outcome or decision was relevant.
Prior to the hearing, the lawyer for the City invited me down to her offices at Metro Hall so we could discuss the case. We spent about an hour together. She explained that as a lawyer for the City of Toronto, she represented the interests of the City and should not be considered to represent the interests of residents. That was my role. However, she was helpful and gracious and we agreed the evidence we had strongly pointed to a different decision than what the COA made.
All Parties received TLAB’s Notice of Hearing notice on June 21, 2017, with the TLAB Appeal scheduled for October 17, 2017. However counsel for the Applicant requested an adjournment at the beginning of the hearing to allow him time to find an arborist who could provide expert testimony about the impact of the proposed development on the mature trees located on the property. Both The City’s lawyers and I felt this was a reasonable request and we agreed to an adjournment.
The hearing was conducted, with Ms. Gillian Burton presiding, over two days – April 16 and 17 in 2018.
On the first day of the hearing, there was an ice storm. Considering that I would have to get from Long Branch to Yonge and Eglinton, where TLAB has its offices, I decided it made sense to take the TTC rather than risk traffic tie-ups. The subway was slow and service was halted between some stations while TTC crews tried to clear the tracks and switches. I was late for the start of the hearing.
Ms. Burton seemed to have no appreciation that I was a Party and commenced the hearing in my absence. I had no way to let TLAB staff know that I expected I would be delayed because there is no cellphone service in TTC tunnels, where we sat out the delays.
When I finally did arrive, I was seated immediately by her right elbow. Somehow, Ms. Burton seemed oblivious to my presence and passed over me in allowing the lawyers to ask questions of witnesses. Ms. Burton also did not seem to acknowledge that I was a lay person nor did she try to explain to me the procedures used in a hearing and clarify what I could and could not do.
The Applicant’s Expert Planning Witness submitted testimony that was heavy on opinion and short on data to support that opinion. This contrasted with more data-driven analysis from the City’s Expert Planning Witness and from the residents, which clearly showed the proposed severance and oversized homes were inconsistent with the character of Long Branch.
TLAB’s rules on whether or not Parties can give testimony suggested that, as a Party, I could not present evidence. I had done a lot of analysis, but needed a way to be able to bring it forward, So I asked my wife to become a Participant so she could present the data. She underwent cross examination by counsel for the Applicant.
The City’s Expert Forestry Witness described the trees on the property in detail, explaining why they were of protected size and therefore needed to be preserved according to the City’s environmental policies. While the Applicant submitted an arborist report suggesting the trees were not healthy, the arborist failed to appear before the hearing to testify or allow for cross-examination of his submission.
During the hearing, counsel for the Applicant repeatedly made reference to two severances that had been granted on Thirty Eighth Street without opposition, which, in their minds, provided ample justification for their client’s proposal.
However, I knew some reasons why there had been no opposition to these severances. At the time, over 40% of the properties on Thirty Eighth Street were owned by non-residents. Some were triplexes rented out to tenants. Some were detached houses rented out to tenants. But others were homes on 50-foot lots that had been purchased by developers intent of severing. Non-resident owners and tenants have little interest in getting involved in community issues such as development. And, in the case of one of the severances, the original property had been in bad repair, was being occupied by loud, partying tenants and, in the words of one neighbour, “Anything would have been better than to continue to have to put up with that”. So they didn’t object.
My wife didn’t feel comfortable describing this when she was testifying. For starters, the neighbour’s comments above would have been inadmissible as they represented hearsay. And my wife was not in on the conversation, so she would have been testifying about something I had described as having been said by someone else.
I tried to bring this up in closing arguments, but counsel for the Applicant kept objecting on the grounds that I was presenting evidence. So I eventually just gave up.
On May 15, 2018, Ms. Burton issued her decision, which upheld the COA’s approval of the severances and variances.
Next week: The fallout from the TLAB decision.
Over the next several weeks, we will be posting a series of articles on the changing face of development in Long Branch.
We’re starting with a story about the case of 9 Thirty Eighth Street because it shaped the way the LBNA came to oppose developers and provided multiple insights and lessons that helped us become so successful in doing so.
On April 4, 2020, The Divisional Court rendered a Decision denying the appeal of a TLAB Review Request that refused an application to sever the property at 9 Thirty Eighth Street. This closed out a lengthy battle against one developer that began on May 4, 2017.
The LBNA asked me to describe the experience because I was intimately involved in it from the outset.
In 2015, a builder purchased the property at 9 Thirty Eighth, in the western part of Long Branch, from an elderly couple and, after renting out the house for a couple of years, the new owner applied to the Committee of Adjustment to sever the property and build two oversized homes. The house on the property was a one-story house built around 1931 on a 50-foot lot. In front of the house are a large, mature Ash tree and 2 similarly large Silver Maples.
Like several of my neighbours, I wrote a Letter of Objection to the Committee of Adjustment.
On May 4, 2017, the Committee of Adjustment heard the application and unanimously granted the severance and all associated variances. However, I was unable to attend the hearing because I was in Africa on business.
While severance applications were a common occurrence at the Committee of Adjustment, what distinguishes this is that the COA set aside overwhelming evidence against the proposal. City Planning felt it was inappropriate and recommended refusal. Urban Forestry expressed concerns that the proposal would result in several mature trees being removed. Seven residents spoke out against the proposal, arguing the variances were not minor and that other severances in the neighbourhood were being used as precedents to justify further severances and thereby change the character of the neighbourhood. Over a dozen residents submitted letters of objection to the proposal, with only a single letter from a resident expressing support for the proposal. Councillor Grimes wrote a letter recommending refusal.
The written decision simply stated the proposal, in the unanimous opinion of the COA panel members, met the “4 Tests” described in The Planning Act. There was no mention of who spoke or what they said. Nor were there any details about why the panel chose to overrule the opinion of City Planning.
On my return to Toronto, wanted to see and hear exactly what was presented to the COA for this hearing. I learned that COA hearings were video recorded and that I could purchase a copy of the recording for this hearing by going down to City Hall.
The builder represented himself at the hearing and his justification was that all the variances were minor. There was no other evidence to support why his proposal should be approved. No one else spoke up in support.
But what concerned me the most was a post-hearing conference between the Panel Chair, Ted Shepherd, and two of his fellow panel members (which could only be heard on the official recording and was not meant to be heard by the public), Mr. Shepherd can be heard commenting that “There’s almost no lot-splits in that part of Long Branch [south towards Lake Promenade]” and “ When you take this neighbourhood at a more micro scale, this [their decision] was precedent-setting”
Effectively, Mr. Shepherd acknowledged there was little precedent to justify their decision.
Stay Tuned! The story of 9 Thirty Eighth Street continues next Tuesday with the TLAB appeal.
When we go to the Committee of Adjustment or TLAB to oppose severance applications, we regularly hear the Planners hired by the builders say that their clients are increasing the supply of housing available to “young families”.
It sounds good, doesn’t it? The builders are helping young families get into the housing market.
You might think this post was going to address affordable housing in the sense of increasing the supply of affordable rental housing or housing for low-income families. Instead, we’re talking about housing that an AVERAGE family can afford.
If you follow the real estate listings in Long Branch, you’ll find that the average price of a home is $834,000. This reflects a mix of house sizes as well as condos and single detached homes.
If you narrow this down to single detached houses, you’ll see listings in the range of $1.1 million to $1.7 million. From what we see, the lower end of this scale represents resale homes – a mix of bungalows and modest 2-story homes with 3 or 4 bedrooms.
The upper end of the scale represents homes that have recently been built. Usually, these are larger (approx. 2500 sq ft.), which is what builders say the market wants. And many of these homes are built on smaller lots – often 25-foot frontages – that do not leave much room for gardens or playing area for young children in the back yards.
This begs the question of whether these newly-built homes are within reach of “young families”
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation helps first time buyers get into the housing market by offering insurance on mortgages.
According to the CMHC, if you want to buy a home with a down payment of less than 20%, you’ll need mortgage loan insurance. This protects your lender in case you can’t make your payments.
CMHC mortgage loan insurance lets you get a mortgage for up to 95% of the purchase price of a home. It also ensures you get a reasonable interest rate, even with your smaller down payment.
Mortgage loan insurance helps stabilize the housing market, too. During economic slumps when down payments may be harder to save, it ensures the availability of mortgage funding.
However, if the home you want to buy is worth over $1 million – which is more the rule than the exception in Toronto – CMHC does not offer mortgage insurance.
Many mortgage lenders use a CMHC tool called the debt service ratio to determine if potential house buyers represent an acceptable risk. This means looking at the total household monthly income relative to expenses such as heat, hydro, gas, vehicle payments, loan payments as well as the projected mortgage payments to determine just how much house people can afford to buy.
To illustrate, let’s look at an example.
Assume a couple want to buy a home that’s on the market for $1.5 Million – about the middle of the range for newly constructed homes in Long Branch. Let’s also assume they are moving from a rental apartment into their first home and are able to come up with $300,000 as a down payment. This represents 20% of the value of the home.
They want to take out a 25-year mortgage, which would be at 2.5% per year. This would result in monthly payments of $5,383.40.
Now let’s look at their monthly expenses.
Property taxes in Toronto average about 0.45% of the assessed value, which we will assume is the $1.5 million they expect to pay. Their monthly property taxes would work out to $563.75.
Both husband and wife have credit cards and their combined balance each month is $600. Heating their new home could be expected to cost of the order of $200 per month for gas or oil.
When we add up all these expenses, we get monthly expenses of $6,747.15.
The threshold lenders use when determining if a client is credit-worthy is that monthly expenses not represent more than 40% of the combined income.
Using this, for our couple wanting to buy a $1.5 million home, their household income before taxes would have to be at least $202,414. We’ve been very conservative on our estimate of credit card debt and we haven’t allowed for a car loan or lease.
In Toronto, the average household income is $102,721, based on 2015 census data. However, households with incomes over $200,000 represent less than 10% of all households. Household incomes over $200,000 are the exception, rather than the rule.
Such high income levels are not characteristic of “young families”. They represent the elite, not average or typical small families.
So, it doesn’t sound like our young family could afford one of the new homes being built. They might, however, be able to afford something closer to the average in Long Branch. It might be more modest than one of the newer homes, but it most likely will have character and be well-built. And it would be affordable for them. And an entry point into the housing market.
So, a message to planners: please don’t insult our intelligence by trying to pass off developments that will be sold at the high end of the price spectrum as being a way to help “young families” participate in the housing market. The numbers just don’t add up!
Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) is an initiative of City Planning to address the so-called “missing middle” in Toronto’s neighbourhoods. The main idea is to promote construction of more low to mid-rise multiplex units (e.g., triplexes), mid-rise apartment buildings, laneway suites and garden suites as ways to increase the supply of housing in the City against an overall goal of making accommodation more affordable.
On February 15, 2022, The Planning and Housing Committee (PHC) met to consider this item. The portion of the meeting dealing with EHON began with a staff report from City Planning, after which deputations from residents’ groups were heard.
In case playing the YouTube video above starts at the beginning of the meeting, click here to take you to the timestamp 2:27:09 to catch the Staff Report from its start.
The LBNA made a deputation to the Planning and Housing Committee, with Chair Christine Mercado speaking on behalf of Long Branch residents. Unfortunately, because this was a virtual session, Christine was unable to share her screen to provide visual support for her deputation, though members of the PHC all had copies they could read during the deputation.
Here are the main points the LBNA wanted the PHC to consider:
The report presented by Planning Staff was based on the 2016 census, which is already 5 years old. Statistics Canada has started releasing data from the 2021 census, so it would be a shame to work from data that are not current. This is the opportunity to use the most up-to-date information.
Within Long Branch, we have three main zoning areas: RD/RS, for detached single-family homes, RM, for triplexes, duplexes and semi-detached homes, and RA for apartment buildings or condos. In addition, we have the site-specific area north of Lakeshore from Thirty Second to Long Branch Avenue where Minto has been building over XXXX townhouse units.
So Long Branch already has the full range of housing options Planning wants to see, all achieved within the existing Planning framework and regulations.
In the words of Christine Mercado, areas such as Long Branch “… need to be analyzed to better understand what is working and then replicate learnings in flat or no growth Neighbourhoods.”
The LBNA also has concerns about the City moving forward to dramatically intensify neighbourhoods without considering the need to grow supporting infrastructure at the same time.
For example, Long Branch residents with school-age children are probably very aware that our schools are stretched over capacity. We have no secondary school in Long Branch. Many children have to be sent to schools outside Long Branch.
LBNA Board members attended an information session from the TDSB for Wards 2 & 3 last week. The presenters shared that there is no money from the Province and no plans for new schools in Long Branch for the foreseeable future.
The City already has policies that direct intensification to “Avenues” – major streets such as Lakeshore Boulevard. Yet we are seeing only sporadic development of mid-rise apartments/condos along Lakeshore. And such mid-rise buildings need to be built with commercial space at grade to make the street more inviting to walk and shop. Several stretches of Lakeshore in Long Branch look shabby and neglected.
In our discussions with residents in our community and others within Toronto, there is extremely low awareness of the magnitude of change that this Committee is considering through the EHON initiatives and in this report. The numbers outlined in the Report for Community Engagement to date are shockingly low to us in a City of 2.8 million.
The pandemic has allowed the City to conduct public hearings formerly held in-person as virtual meetings. Virtual meetings rate lower on engagement than in-person. it is easier to cut a video or audio feed to stop someone from speaking. It is easier for panel members to tune out opposing voices. They can simply suspend their video feed and disappear behind a solid coloured tile so we have no idea whether or not they’re paying attention.
It seems as though the City is rushing to implement new policies with little genuine public consultation. We have not seen truly interactive discussions with City policy-makers and influencers. They tell us what they want to do. We tell them our concerns. But there is no true communication – dialogue – to allow residents to provide meaningful input to public policy and for policy-makers to show they have listened by addressing residents’ concerns. So far, it just seems like “consultation” is actually window-dressing.
The LBNA’s deputation is embedded in the YouTube video window below.
In case playing the YouTube video above starts at the beginning of the meeting, click here to take you to the timestamp 2:38:29 to catch Christine’s deputation from its start.
[If you allow the YouTube video to continue playing after Christine’s deputation, you can hear what other residents’ groups had to say as well]Housing is affordable, on average, if housing costs can be limited to 30% of a family’s after tax annual income. Housing includes home ownership and rentals.
Mathematically, a couple whose combined after tax income is $100,000 a year (gross income of about $66k each) would have an upper housing cost limit of $30,000/yr. or $2,500/mo.
Someone paid minimum wage of $15/hr. makes about $30,000 before tax and $25,200 after tax (approx. 16% effective tax rate). For a couple each making minimum wage their combined after tax income is $50,400 and their housing limit is $15,120 or $1,260 per month for a couple. For a single person the limit is $630 a month.
The problem with persistent house price escalation is that housing prices can become out of reach for people with lower incomes.
Housing prices rise but, as long as the rate of rise is within capacity of the local economy to absorb, rising house prices are not a significant issue. A significant issue arises when housing prices rise above what the local economy can really afford.
There is all sorts of evidence that house pricing has exceeded those limits. Renovictions, increased Food Bank reliance, increased homelessness are all symptoms of housing costs that are too high.
Solutions proposed that increase housing supply but which are beyond the affordable price range won’t solve high housing prices. Increasing the supply of unaffordable housing doesn’t help and in fact delays other housing solutions.
For the past ten years or so, external demand has increased the price of housing far beyond the capacity of the local population to pay. Stated another way, how can a local economy with average pay increase of 2% a year cause a housing bubble that saw on average 11.5% increase compounded over the past 10 years. Until about 2010 the rate of housing increase was about 2% similar to the rate of increase in salaries and inflation. Something else, beyond the regular local economy has caused significant housing appreciation.
There are likely several sources of external financing that have grown our housing costs. Pension funds, Investment funds and other large institutions with significant funds to “invest” and others with less of significant fund access have set up investments that capitalize on housing growth. With rates of return as high as 11%, housing investment is seen a perfect combination of low risk and high return.
Another issue is immigration that tends to move too often to the largest cities. Immigration in the recent past has grown the population, not just replaced our declining birth rates.
However, unlike, in the past, when immigrants were encouraged to live in rural Canada, immigrants tend to gravitate towards urban centres. That’s where the jobs are. That’s where they are most likely to find elements of their native culture. That’s where they find fellow ex-pats to bond with.
Unfortunately, the Government has seemingly overlooked the needs of immigrants after they arrive in Canada. Infrastructure such as housing, schools or health care has not kept pace to accommodate the population increase. And finding affordable housing – whether it be ownership or rental – is a prime need for immigrants to be able to settle in their adopted country.
Regardless of the specific source of the financing, the fact that locals are regularly outbid by investors for housing is an economic disaster that continues. Most countries restrict foreign purchasing of housing, but not Canada. Canada is one top 10 most desirable countries to live in in the World and the locals have no protection from inflationary housing investment.
The big money is moving in and the incumbents are being forced out. This is wrong. Locals vote, foreign investors don’t.
We need to take steps to significantly reduce housing purchasing by investors – foreign or otherwise- that limits excessive increases and maintains housing at a cost that the locals can afford. To allow otherwise is irresponsible. Perhaps a start would be to monitor and report housing inflation and establish benchmarks to maintain similar to how we manage to a 2% inflation target.
To learn more about this, The National Post has an excellent article.
About the author: This post was contributed by Ken O’Brien. Ken is a member of the Board of the LBNA and serves as Treasurer.
